undefined | Better HN

0 pointsalabastervlog1y ago0 comments

Yeah, I think it’s worth reflecting that most people with families work 80-hour weeks. Richer people can pay others to take on part of that workload so they can do 50 or 60 hours of work for a company and still actually be working less. Which is fine, I guess, until they’re all like “why are you poors always so sluggish and tired and wanting to clock out right at 5 on the dot?”

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

grandempire1y ago· 2 in thread

Nah. This kind of person tends to do more family stuff, and participate in more community events, and do more work.

It’s ok to not be a busy body. I’m not one because it makes me miserable . But these imaginary tradeoffs we invent in our heads are often just justifications.

alabastervlogOP1y ago

I'm not following your point. I've got a solid 30 hours of unpaid work a week, and it'd be closer to 40 if I had to commute, and when my kids were younger and I still had a commute it was around 50 hours, all on top of my actual job. I could and, if it weren't wildly financially irresponsible, absolutely would pay to make about 20 hours of that vanish at no harm whatsoever (benefit, actually) to my personal relationships & family, and then I'd have a lot more time and energy for other things. That's just... how clocks work, IDK. This is overwhelmingly the norm for people who can't afford to pay others to do lots of stuff for them.

grandempire1y ago

My point is busy people do even more of the things that you think make you busy.

You think kids are taking up all your time? They have more kids and volunteer at the school, and run a church group, etc.

The clock is secondary because using time efficiently, planning, and classifying which hours you are awake and available are all skills.

Similar patterns happen all throughout life. People have non linear capacities and performance.

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse